G.R. No. 198751, August 19, 2015
Flor Cañas-Manuel, Petitioner, vs. Andres D. Egano, Respondent.

FACTS

In 2004, respondent Andres D. Egano and his spouse filed a “Petition for Nullification of Coverage and Disqualification of Farmer-Beneficiary” with the DAR Regional Office (DARRO), Region VIII. They contested the issuance of Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) No. 00091138 to petitioner Flor Cañas-Manuel and her sister, Salome D. Cañas, over a portion of Lot 3595. The respondent alleged that a portion (3,655.50 sq.m.) of the land had been sold to him by the petitioner’s father, Celedonio Cañas, and that the petitioner and her sister were not actual tillers and thus not qualified as farmer-beneficiaries.
On October 28, 2004, DAR Regional Director Tiburcio A. Morales, Jr. granted the petition. He declared the award to the petitioner and her sister null and void ab initio, directed a delineation survey, ordered the identification of the respondent as the rightful farmer-beneficiary, and instructed the respondent to coordinate with the Legal Division to file a proper petition for cancellation of the CLOA with the Adjudication Board. The petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied, and this order became final and executory as no appeal was filed.
Pursuant to the Director’s order, the respondent filed a “Petition for Cancellation of CLOA No. 00091138” with the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB)-Region VIII on January 24, 2005. On February 16, 2006, Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) Wilfredo M. Navarra ordered the cancellation of CLOA No. 00091138 and its corresponding Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 3324, based on the DAR Regional Director’s October 28, 2004 order. The petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied, and her appeal to the DARAB Central Office was dismissed on May 29, 2007. The DARAB Central Office ruled that the cancellation was a necessary consequence of the DAR Regional Director’s declaration, which bound the DARAB.
The petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) via a Petition for Review under Rule 43. The CA affirmed the DARAB’s decision in toto on February 18, 2011, stating that the DARAB had no appellate jurisdiction over acts of DAR Regional Directors and that the petitioner should have addressed her concerns to the DAR Secretary. The CA denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on August 31, 2011.
The petitioner then filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court. She argued that the DAR Regional Director’s October 28, 2004 order was illegal, null, and void and could not attain finality. She contended that the respondent’s petition with the DARRO was barred by prescription (filed 11 years after CLOA registration) and constituted a prohibited collateral attack on her title. She also raised substantive issues: that her CLOA covered Lot No. 3592, not Lot No. 3595 as claimed by the respondent; that the DAR Regional Director exceeded his authority by ruling on ownership, a matter for the courts; and that even if a sale occurred, it was prohibited under Section 73(e) of Republic Act No. 6657 and could not be a basis for disqualification and cancellation.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the decisions of the DARAB and the DAR Regional Director, which ordered the cancellation of the petitioner’s CLOA and disqualification as a farmer-beneficiary based on the DAR Regional Director’s October 28, 2004 order.

RULING

The Supreme Court found merit in the petition and reversed the assailed CA decision and resolutions. The Court held that the DAR Regional Director’s October 28, 2004 order was issued without jurisdiction. The authority to cancel a registered CLOA is vested in the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) under Section 1(f), Rule II of the 2003 DARAB Rules of Procedure, which grants the DARAB original and exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving the correction, cancellation, and secondary issuances of CLOAs registered with the Land Registration Authority. The DAR Regional Director has no jurisdiction to declare a CLOA null and void or to order its cancellation. Consequently, all proceedings stemming from this void order, including the DARAB and CA decisions, are also null and void. The Court emphasized that jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law and cannot be acquired through, or waived by, any act or omission of the parties. Since the DAR Regional Director acted without jurisdiction, his order was a nullity and could not attain finality. The case was remanded to the DARAB for proper proceedings.